Ex Parte Nonaka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 13, 2010

09856276 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte AKIRA NONAKA and TADASHI EZAKI
____________________

Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 13, 2010
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THU A. DANG, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-5, 71, 140, 141, 287 and 288 (App. Br. 2). Claims
6-70, 72-139 and 142-286 have been cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for
providing content data via data providing and processing apparati (Spec. 1,
ll. 7-8).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A data providing system for distributing content data
from a data providing apparatus to a data processing apparatus
and managing said data providing apparatus and said data
processing apparatus by a management apparatus, wherein

said management apparatus prepares a key file storing
encrypted content key data and encrypted usage control policy
data indicating a content of rights such as usage permission
conditions of said content data,

said data providing apparatus provides said content data
encrypted by using said content key data, and

said data processing apparatus decrypts said content key
data and said usage control policy data stored in said key file
and determines the handling of said content data based on the
decrypted usage control policy data.

Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

3
Prior Art
Linehan 5,495,533 Feb. 27, 1996
Kravitz 6,738,905 B1 May 18, 2004

Rejections
Claims 1-4, 71, 140, 287, and 288 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Linehan.
Claims 5 and 141 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Linehan and Kravitz.

ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-4, 71, 140, 287, and 288
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Linehan,
as Linehan does not disclose an encrypted access control list (App.Br.
8). Further, Appellants argue Linehan does not disclose or suggest a
management apparatus that prepares a key file storing encrypted
content key data and encrypted usage control policy data indicating a
content of rights such as usage permission conditions of the content
data (Ans. 10).
In response, the Examiner finds that the access control list of Fig. 8
indicates content of rights, including usage permission conditions of content
data (Ans. 4). Further, the Examiner further finds that Linehan provides a
file header that includes a file encryption key (id. at 8). The Examiner finds,
as supported by Fig. 8 of Linehan, that the file encryption key is, itself,
encrypted under a control key, a control index number, a file owner’s name,
an access control list, and a message authentication check (id. at 8). Further,

Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

4
the Examiner finds that Linehan discloses that the file header is stored as
part of the encrypted file in the file server (Ans. 9).

Issue 1: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Linehan teaches a key file storing encrypted usage control policy data?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Linehan Reference
(1) Linehan describes a computing system that includes a security
system. The security system identifies whether a user is permitted to create
or access a data file on the computing system. (col. 4, ll. 61-64).
(2) The file header, of Fig. 8, includes a file encryption key that is
encrypted under a control key, a control key index number, a file owner’s
name, access control list and message authentication check (Fig. 8).
Linehan discloses that "[t]he entire file header is 'protected' against
modification by a message authentication check field that is appended to the
header and is encrypted under the same control key" (col. 8. ll. 57-65).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation." Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

5
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).

ANALYSIS
Based on the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner reads the access
control list of Linehan on the usage control policy data of representative
claim 1. We find that Linehan discloses that the (1) file encryption key and
(2) message authentication check are encrypted, but the access control list is
not (FF 2). Accordingly, we find Linehan does not disclose a key file
storing encrypted usage control policy data. Thus, we find the Examiner
erred.

103(a): claims 5 and 141
We find claim 5 depends from independent claim 1 (App. Br. 12,
Claims App'x). Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we find Linehan does
not disclose an "a key file encrypted usage control policy data." The
Examiner did not rely on Kravitz to teach this limitation. Claim 5, which
depends from claim 1 which recites this limitation, and claim 141 which
recites this limitation. Thus, we find neither Linehan nor Kravitz when
taken alone or in combination teach or suggest the invention as recited in
claim 5 or claim 141. Accordingly, we find Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding Linehan teaches "encrypted usage control policy
data," as recited in claims 5 and 141.

Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

6
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding Linehan
teaches "encrypted usage control policy data." Thus, Appellants have shown
the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is anticipated by Linehan.
We find independent claims 71, 140, 287, and 288 similarly recite
"encrypted usage control policy data" (App. Br. 12-15, Claims App'x) and
thus, for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, we find the
Examiner erred in finding claims 71, 140, 287, and 288 are anticipated by
Linehan. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of (1) claim 1, and
claims 2-4 which depend therefrom; (2) independent claim 71; (3)
independent claim 140; (4) independent claim 287; and (5) independent
claim 288.
Additionally, Appellants argue claims 5 and 141 for the reasons
argued with respect to claim 1. Thus, Appellants have shown the Examiner
erred in finding claims 5 and 141 are obvious over Linehan and Kravitz.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 71, 140, 287 and 288 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Linehan is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 141 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Linehan and Kravitz is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

Appeal 2009-004413
Application 09/856,276

7

SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
P.O. BOX 061080
WACKER DRIVE STATION, WILLIS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080